JAN. 2, 1837.]

Admission of Michigan.

[SENATE.

of Congress of 1805, establishing the Territory of Michigan, had been withdrawn; and the moment this was done, the jurisdiction of Ohio over the disputed territory was complete. It is, then, by virtue of the constitution of the State that Ohio has taken jurisdiction over that portion of country; we cannot for a moment admit the idea that Congress has given us any power to do so. Congress has only recognised the validity of our claim, and removed the difficulty the act of 1805 had created. He, therefore, as one of the Senators from Ohio, was perfectly satisfied that the State of Michigan should be admitted without any reference to the Ohio boundary whatever. On this question doubts no longer remain, as it respects Ohio; and he felt strongly disposed to remove from the people of Michigan the now unnecessary and humiliating condition which had been imposed on them, which condition, he thought, in point of sound policy, was never required, nor did he believe that Congress rightfully possessed the power to impose it.

But, sir, (said Mr. M.,) the view which I have so far taken on this subject is very important one, indeed, when compared with the broad and dangerous principle contained in the preamble before us. He had for many years occupied some humble station in public life; had been somewhat acquainted with the legislation of the country; that branch, more than any other, had occupied his attention; and he could say, in the most perfect sincerity, and with a clear conscience, that he never had heard, nor had he ever expected to hear, doctrines such as were recognised in the preamble to the bill, and such as had been openly and clearly avowed in the Senate on the present occasion, and in support of the preamble now under discussion. The facts, as stated by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] with regard to the proceedings in Michigan, have often been repeated on this floor; they are well known, and need not be again detailed. Congress has recognised, even by the act of the 15th June, 1836, Michigan as a State; in the third section of that act she is no less than four times spoken of as a State. It is the State of Michigan, and not the people of the country, as abstract from the sovereignty of the State, that can rightfully respond to the law of Congress; and it is only the voice of the people of the State, collected and expressed as a State, that ought to be received as creating any obligation on the part of Congress, or indeed any obligation upon the State herself.

trine contained in the preamble, the gentleman was unquestionably in error. He, however, agreed with the Senator that Michigan ought to be admitted into the Union; his mind had undergone no change on this point, for he was of the same opinion at the last session of Congress; he was opposed to the principle contained in the third section of the act for her admission at the time of its passage, though he said nothing on the floor of the Senate on the subject. He at that time considered this third section not only as unnecessary as it respected the rights of Ohio, but as unconstitutional and dangerous, and as requiring of the people of Michigan an act nugatory in itself, and humiliating in its consequences. He was anxious then, he was anxious now, that Michigan should be admitted without having any restriction or condition whatever imposed on her. He thought then, as he found the fact now, that the people of Michigan would view this provision, requiring their assent to the law of Congress, as an act of supererogation, and one which the authority of the constitution did not warrant, and did not reach; and he had found both conventions which had lately been held in Michigan concur on this head, for both had denied the power of Congress to require the assent which had been required in the third section of the act for their admission; nor did they submit or agree to give it as a matter of right, but as matter of obedience only, and to prove to the country their love and attachment to the Union. Whenever Michigan shall be admitted, it ought to be on that high | and elevated ground on which she desires to stand: a repeal of the third section of the act of last session. On this ground, Mr. M. said, he wished most ardently to place her citizens; and the passage of the bill without the preamble would accomplish that object; for he believed that it was a well-settled principle, that, if the provisions of an act passed by the Legislature be repugnant to the provisions of a former act, the former act is repealed without any express words being used for that purpose. This, then, was his first, though most inconsid. erable, reason, for wishing to strike out the preamble; for, if his doctrine was true, as he verily believed it was, the passage of the act itself, without the lumber and encumbrance of the preamble, would fairly and honorably admit the State of Michigan at once. He had understood the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] to say that, if both the Senators from Ohio were satisfied as to the northern boundary line of that State, he would have no objection to give his assent to the bill, provided the preamble was stricken out, after this declaration. If that were done, as he (Mr. M.) hoped it would be, he had but little doubt of the unanimous vote of the Senate in favor of the admission; he could not possibly see any quarter from which objections would be made to it. Gentlemen had argued as if there was a party here who wished to keep Michigan out of the Union; heat one particular place? If by the word "State," or the was not one of those; and whatever gentlemen might expression, "people of the State," we mean, as I contend say in argument, he did not suppose a single member is the only correct meaning, an organized community, a harbored such a wish, but all were anxious for her ad- people who have associated together and provided, for mission the first moment it could be done without a vio- the safety and security of all, written constitutions and lation of constitutional duty, of principle, or of law. laws, and also provided for the exercise of its sovereignAlthough it has been attempted to be impressed upon ty through the instrumentality of constituted tribunals, the Senate that the controversy which had existed be- or a Government of any other known and established tween Ohio and Michigan, with regard to boundary, was character, if this be the case, then he contended that a one reason why the delegation from that State were op- State had but one mode, and one medium, through posed to the bill, he begged leave to undeceive gentle-which it could express its opinions or exercise its pow. men on this point, by assuring them that was not the case; the course which Ohio had marked out for herself in that controversy had proved itself to be the correct one. Congress, by their act of the last session, had given consent to the constitutional boundary of that State, and it had now become satisfactory as well as obligatory on all parties; and thus the encumbrance which for so many years had been thrown over the title of Ohio by the act

But, sir, what are we to understand by this word "State?" Do we mean an organized, or do we mean an unorganized, community? Do we mean a country gov. erned by known and established laws, or do we mean one where the law shall never be known but when expressed by the public voice, through the medium of county conventions, or by an assemblage of the people

er; and that, in pursuance of its own constitution and laws, a State can be known or recognised under no other character; and, to use a figurative expression, it can neither think, speak, nor act, in any other way. Well, sir, (said Mr. M.,) what are the few facts to which this doctrine can be applied in the present case? The sovereign, but it would probably be more appropriate to say the physical or numerical, power of the people of

SENATE.]

Admission of Michigan.

Michigan, exercised in their primary assemblies, without the authority of any law of the State, and not only without the sanction of any constitutional provision, but in direct contravention of constitution and law, and by mere numerical strength, evidenced by a plurality of votes, have understood her to give the assent of the State to an act of Congress, which is to remain obligatory upon the State in all time to come, and which the regular constituted authorities of the State have no power to control, and which the people themselves, according to the provisions of their own constitution, can never alter, abridge, or amend; and it is the assent thus given that we are now so emphatically called upon to receive as the constitutional and legitimate will of the State. Sir, (said, Mr. M.,) I cannot consent thus to humble any one of the sovereign States of this Union. Let it be constantly borne in mind, that there have been two conventions assembled in Michigan, for the purpose of considering, or assenting to, the act of Congress. The convention which first met was in pursuance of a law of the State specially passed for that purpose; that it was elected and organized according to the provisions of that law; that this convention dissented from the proposition of Congress, or rather did not consent thereto; that subsequent to this decision it was that the people met in their primary assemblies, and the result was that another convention was bad. The documents furnished the Senate inform us that in two counties no elections were held, and, of course, those counties were not represented in this latter convention, the. president of which, in a com munication to the President of the United States, says that "the convention originated through primary meetings of the citizens of the several counties, in ample time to afford notice to the whole State; pursuant thereto, elections, kept open for two days, on the 5th and 6th instant, (December,) have been held in all the counties except Monroe and Macomb." This (Mr. M. said) was a relation of facts and circumstances to him entirely inexplicable; no time is mentioned as to the notice given, nor what kind of notice was thought necessary, or how the same was promulgated. This, as it appears to us, was mere matter of opinion, and might, in Michigan, depend very much on party views and party purposes. But the great principle, and, indeed, the argument, does not depend on these minor considerations; the question is, will Congress recognise as valid, constitutional, and obligatory, without the color of a law of Michigan to sustain it, an act done by the people of that State in their primary assemblies, and acknowledge that act as obligatory on the constituted authorities and Legislature of the State? Are we prepared to subject all State power and State authority to the test of this principle? Our answer not only concerns Michigan, but ought, and, I trust, will be examined into by every State in the Union; and although Michigan at this moment may be the scapegoat to bear off this power into the Western wilderness, yet it may and can be found convenient to apply it to other States. Are we prepared for this application? Is the great question now about to be decided? I would most seriously call upon all Staterights men to look well to this matter. Do you love and venerate your own constitution and laws, the only guarantee you have for all your personal, social, and political rights? Are you willing to subject them all to this tremendous power? Congress may have a favorite measure to accomplish, which may come in collision with State power. How easy to overcome this power, by doing what is now claimed to be right in Michigan; pass an act requiring the people of the State to give their assent to it, or permitting them, if you please, to do so; send amongst them your agents and emissaries, to induce calls for primary assemblies, to hold a convention to suit your views; obtain the act of assent by such convention,

[JAN. 2, 1837.

and your whole purpose is answered. The State is under your feet; you are the master-spirit that directs its movements; and you would have the right to call upon the executive power of the country to see that your laws were faithfully executed. Why, sir, but yesterday, and we might have looked on this picture as fancy only; but it is now fast assuming the character of fact, and we may awake to the reality before we are aware. All that has been suggested, and much more, may take place under the sanction of the broad principle now contended for. Let it not be said that we are unnecessarily alarmed and that the argument is carried to extremes. We always test principles by the extent to which they can, consistent with themselves, be carried into effect. Suppose Congress should have a favorite project to carry through a State, say the State of South Carolina-for instance, a road or canal-which all would agree could not be done without the consent of the State, and Congress should pass an act in terms precisely those used in the act for the admission of Michigan, and the Legislature of the State should be convened to consider the proposi tion, or should provide for the election of a convention, who should meet and reject the same. If, after all this, some person should be found possessing influence suffi. cient, either with or without the patronage of this Gov. ernment, to obtain a majority of the qualified electors of the State, or even the whole body of the people, both male and female, no matter how expressed, whether by convention or otherwise, would any man say that this was sufficient authority for Congress to proceed with the contemplated work? No! none would be found to avow this at once; yet to this length will the doctrine lead.

Sir, the matter can be brought home to our doors in Ohio, we have had a controversy partaking of this character with the Bank of the United States: the Legislature of the State denied the power of Congress to authorize the bank to send a branch into the State without its consent. Suppose the charter had contained a provision that a branch might be sent into any State by the "assent of a convention of delegates, elected by the said State, for the sole purpose of giving such assent:" Suppose, sir, this had been the original charter of the bank, and a convention of delegates had been gotten up, and have forced upon the State the power of the bank, contrary to her own constitution and laws, and against the express will of the Legislature: I ask every citizen of Ohio, what would have been bis opinion and feelings on a state of things of this kind? For my own part, as a citizen of that State, I had rather see Ohio struck at once from the Union, than that a doctrine of this kind should be considered orthodox, and prevail in practice. We might wander for a while at large, and find a resting place; but when once swallowed up by this Government, our pow er of action would entirely cease. Then, indeed, would we have no Government of our own; we would be but mere automata in the hands of those who administer this Government. They would be the judges both as to the time and manner of our acting, and of the validity of the records of those acts. Would not this be the condi tion of the States if we adopt and maintain this danger. ous principle?-a principle which admits a State into the Union without law and without record, so far as the State has any action in this case. It is true, as was observed by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that good precedents are soon forgotten, while bad ones live forever. He (Mr. M.) contended that the principle contained in the preamble to the bill was vi cious in the extreme. Shall we, then, countenance it? Shall we maintain it? He trusted not.

He said he was somewhat surprised, he confessed, to hear the doctrine that had been advanced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN.] That gentle

man, if he understood him correctly, not only sustained the proceedings of the last convention in Michigan, but contended that if it had not assented, the people would have gone on, even ad infinitum, to elect conventions, until they had obtained one which would give the assent. A doctrine so latitudinarian as this, he said, he could by no means admit. It was a doctrine that unloosed all the obligation of society, and dissolved government into its original elements.

[SENATE.

security of all, and in the formation of which all had an equal right to participate.

But, sir, suppose all that has been urged against the facts, as they appear in this case, should be deemed insufficient to show that the principle upon which the admission of Michigan is made to rest is founded in mistaken and erroneous views, yet he contended that there was no certain or conclusive evidence to show that the consent of the people of Michigan had ever been given, In a controversy of this kind he would not fear to as required by the act of Congress. Who are the peomeet the gentleman, even in his own State, in which, as ple of Michigan, within the meaning of that act? Surely far as he knew, this doctrine had been first promulgated the qualified voters of that State, and none other; no to the country. He would call the attention of the Sen- one will contend for an opposite construction. What ator to a public letter from the pen of a very distinguish- evidence, then, have we that the convention which gave ed citizen of that State; that letter had been made public, the assent was elected by the proper persons? None at and of course was public property, and liable to public all; for aught we know, or for aught that appears in any examination. The doctrine, he contended, contained in part of the documents furnished the Senate, there is no it, was revolutionary in its nature; it went to prove, as he conclusive evidence that the people of Michigan ever understood it, that the right of revolution was a right in- did give their assent to the act of Congress. That the herent in the very nature of our institutions; a doctrine people of that State are desirous of being admitted into which he could not admit as correct, and one which went the Union he had little doubt; but insisted that certain to prove that we had no stability whatever in our Govern- forms were necessary before that admission could take ment. This doctrine was broached in a State whose cit- place. The evidence furnished to prove a compliance izens had always proved themselves sound republicans; with those forms he considered entirely incomplete and democratic sons of democratic fathers; and he felt highly unsatisfactory. True, as the Senator from Tennessee gratified in finding that in that State this doctrine had fall has said, we have evidence founded on publications in en still-born from the press: it was at once rebuked by newspapers, the statements of individuals, and copies of the good, sound, democratic sense of the people, and he the proceedings of the convention itself; but none of thought had gone to the tomb of the Capulets; but he these come to us under oath, or under the forms of offifeared it was but the precursor of more extensive opera- cial proceedings. The gentleman's opinion is, that evitions of a system which, while it flattered the pride and dence thus furnished ought to be considered sufficient to vanity of the people, was stealing from them every ves- found an act of legislation upon. To this (he said) he tige of liberty, and undermining the foundation of all agreed; but was the present a mere question of general their social institutions. The case of Maryland had been or local policy, to operate in future? He thought not. mentioned; the plea in that case was, if he understood it It was a question of a judicial character. Deciding upon correctly, that the Legislature of the State having, as the proper construction of an existing law, and the facts some thought, neglected to adopt such measures as the that were to determine the rights of citizens under that wants of the people required, that the people, or rather law, we assumed here the character of judges rather a majority of the people, had the right, by a convention, than legislators; and he thought it indispensably neces elected without the authority of any law, to put down sary that at least the shadow of judicial evidence should the whole frame of Government, and establish a new be preserved; and he contended that in this case even Government, with new powers and new agents, in its that shadow did not appear. In measures of naked polstead; that, in fact, the majority of the people of a State icy, the argument of the gentleman might safely be adhad the right to form a Government to suit their own mitted; but he repudiated its application in the present convenience, without any regard to the rights of the mi- case. If evidence of a higher nature exists, it is somenority, as secured under the existing Government. This what extraordinary that it has not been furnished the he considered the first act in the grand drama, by which Senate. If we are to rely exclusively on the popular he feared that public institutions, made for the safety of vote of the people of the State, we ought to have some all, were to be abolished for the special benefit of a part; evidence of the votes given, and by whom. Does a sinit was the mere precursor of more energetic and exten-gle gentleman here know, by any evidence furnished, sive operations. Suppose a few of the large States whether the persons who voted on the 5th and 6th days should be disposed to think that the Senatorial repre- of December, for members to a convention, were quali sentation in Congress was unequal; that it was absurd, fied electors or not? No; not one of us has any evidence and derogatory to the rights of the people, that New on that point. How, then, are we to judge of the valid. York should have no more power in this body than Del-ity of the vote, or the rights of the convention? None aware; and should wish to change the present order of things. True it is that the constitution of the United States has provided that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; but what of that? This, according to the argument we have heard, is but a subordinate right, always subject to the constitutional power of the people; let conventions be holden, elected by the people in their primary assemblies, according to mere numbers, and less than half a dozen of the most populous States would swallow up the twenty smaller ones, who now, by giving their assent to this doctrine, do homage to the larger States for their liberties, and appear willing to rely on them, and not on the constitution, as the security for their rights. would be well that we should always remember that our fathers did not expend their blood and treasure to establish a Government resting alone upon popular breath, but one founded on written constitutions and laws for the

It

of the proceedings were authorized by a State law, and thus stamping them with the solemnity of State authority; nor have we any parol evidence, even without oath, at all satisfactory on this point. It is most extraordinary that we are not furnished with any evidence as to who the voters were that cast their votes for the election of members to the convention by whom the assent was given; and we may ask, and not without reason, who were they, or by what rule or authority their votes were collected and counted? No one here knows any thing on the subject. Sir, the history of the day informs us that the tide of emigration into the State of Michigan has for a year or two past been immense; not only citizens of the United States, but foreigners, who have reached our shores in shoals, have found their way into that part of our country. Have we any evidence that this class of men were not the persons, in a good degree, who have thus undertaken to remodel the constitution of

SENATE.]

Admission of Michigan.

Michigan, and with it the very principles of our Government? Was it this class of men, or any portion of them, that have undertaken to give the assent of Michigan to her boundaries, as prescribed by Congress? Have we, I repeat again, any evidence to prove that this is not the class of persons who elected the second convention? We have no such evidence.

There is another view of this subject, not unworthy our notice. The election appears to have been held two days in each county, and he should be glad to be informed who it was that selected the days, and the number of days in which the election was holden. Who it was that gave the notice of the place and manner of conducting the elections. Was it proclaimed by one individual, or was it made known by an assemblage of citizens in one county to the citizens of another county? Did the county of A send a special messenger to the county of B, and so throughout the State; or did the people act simultaneously, by instinct or impulse? Was the voting by ballot in one county, and viva voce in another, and in a third by the holding up of hands or counting of heads? All these facts, he contended, were entirely unknown to the Senate, and yet we were called to declare, by the solemn enactment of a law, that the people of Michigan, in proper form, had given their assent to the condition imposed on them by the act of Congress. He contended that the Senate was about to establish the truth of a fact about which they had heard but little, except from public rumor, paragraphs in party newspapers, or from the statements and assertions of individuals not under the obligations of an oath. This, he thought, would be a most dangerous decision, pronounced at a very inauspicious time. The condition of the country is at this time peculiar, if not alarming. He said he felt it his duty to express his opinions honestly, as he entertained them; and he regretted much that duty seemed to require him to comment on the existing state of things. Almost every newspaper on which he laid his hands contained the history of crimes almost without number, and strongly impressed upon his mind the idea that men began to think it right to take the administra ion of justice into their own hands, and dispense what they believed it to be, entirely without any of the forms of law. He bad read of punishments of the highest nature being inflicted by the order of assemblies of the people, in some of the States, who had conducted their proceedings with all the formality and gravity, no doubt, that the convention of Michigan had conducted theirs. He had read, with some surprise as well as regret, advertisements in newspapers in different cities, offering for sale fine duelling pistols, and pistols for the belt and the pocket, bowie-knives, and like instruments, well calculated for the taking of human life, offered as convenient articles, necessary for the convenience or comfort of man. He had no recollection of seeing, until very lately, advertisements of this kind; and the question very naturally pressed itself upon his mind, what does all this mean? Does it not prove to us that men are endeavoring to place themselves entirely above the power of the law, and do that which they think to be right in their own eyes? He thought that it was high time for the whole constituted authorities of the country to use all proper means to circumscribe the entire action of the people within the strict limits of the law, before the restraint of law was lost sight of altogether. Recognise (said Mr M.) that the people of Michigan may, in this informal manner, dispense with the constitution and laws of their own State, and you at the same time recognise the doctrine that numerical strength alone shall have precedence in point of obligation to the most solemn legal enactments. It seemed to him there was at that moment a powerful responsibility resting on Congress, and that they ought to proceed with the most serious deliberation. He had heard for a year

[JAN. 2, 1837.

or two past much said about the abuse of executive power; but, said he, we are about to change the question, and to establish here dangerous assumptions of legisla tive power. By the act of the 15th of June, the fact of Michigan having assented to the conditions of that act is to be ascertained by the President of the United States alone; he is made the sole judge when the assent is given, and is to make the same known by proclamation. Has be found the fact to exist? or has he issued his proclamation? No; he has done neither. He informs us that one convention, elected and convened in pursuance of a law of the State, had not given its assent. He also informs us that another convention had met, and did assent; and he further says, that if the proceedings of this latter convention had come to him in the recess of Congress, he would have issued his proclamation in conformity with the provision of the act of Congress, if he was satisfied that this convention, in all respects, had accorded with the will of the people of Michigan. The President was not satisfied that such facts existed, upon which his proclamation ought to issue, and he referred the whole proceedings to Congress; and this very reference ought to prove to us that the fact did not exist, and that Michigan had not complied with the conditions required of her; and he referred it, in order that the restrictions might be removed; but, instead of removing the restrictions, we are about to find the fact of assent. He was anxious that this question should come to an issue, and that Michigan should come into the Union, but was not willing to sacrifice any principle to attain even this desirable end. He thought it would be better for the people of Michigan themselves, and more satisfactory, if they were kept a little longer out of the Union, rather than have a principle adopted which both of her conventions had declared to be unconstitutional. He trusted, however, that the difficulties might be remedied in the way suggested by the chairman of the committee; for he understood the gentleman to say that he viewed the preamble as of little consequence, and would vote for the bill if it was stricken out; yet he would feel himself bound to retain it, although he considered it perfectly harmless and nugatory.

Now, if this was the case, he hoped the gentleman, in courtesy, would at once agree to let it be stricken out by the Senate, without his vote, as he believed it to be entirely unimportant, while other gentlemen believed it involved a dangerous principle, and would compel them to vote against the bill if it was retained; and he fully believed, that if the gentleman would thus give his assent, and the obnoxious preamble was stricken out, there would not be a dissenting voice to the admission of the new State into the Union. He could see no prejudice that would result, in pursuing this course, to the boundaries of either Ohio or Indiana; their boundaries were already settled, and could not be disturbed, whether the preamble was retained or not. A great deal (said Mr. M.) has been said here about Michigan having extended her jurisdiction over part of the territory belonging to Ohio and Indiana; but if he understood the constitution of Michigan, no definite boundary was established by that instrument. It was in the preamble to the constitution it was to be found, and in that alone. It was there provided that the people inhabiting the Territory, as established by the act of Congress of 1805, formed for themselves a State Government; this he considered as creating no difficulty as it respected the question of boundary, either with Ohio or Indiana. He therefore most sincerely hoped the honorable chairman would give his assent to thus striking out the preamble, for with it he thought it impossible to vote for the bill.

The honorable chairman, he said, had told us that this was not a party or political question. He agreed with him that it was not. He felt that he ought to approach